Replies to post #12627 on InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[beattheclockmn]

dagrinch: IMHO your option "C" is not possible. In effect, you are saying that the judge has ruled as a matter of law that infringement has occured. That would be as MATERIAL an event as there could be and it seems to me it would have to be disclosed. Even if the Judge had a lid on that there is no way IDCC could put out a press release that says the ruling doesn't have a material effect on the relief they were seeking. As I said JMHO.

James

[brokentrade]

How do those who believe all patents have an incremental value explain the fact that InterDigital voluntarily dismissed with prejudice a number of patents and claims in 1999? Including the patent which they had declared valid in Sweden against the Ericsson objection. The answer, I think, is that there is a certain amount of duplication in the patents.
There is no way InterDigital "won" the claims that were withdrawn from consideration. At least if by winning we mean get paid for them. It is small consolation that they weren't also declared invalid.

[rmarchma]

Dagrinch and Btclock re Ericy and 10k/press release:

Dagrinch I would think that your possibility number A is the most likely explanation out of the three possibilities that you mentioned. I tend to concur with beattheclock's assessment as follows:

"Posted by: beattheclockmn
In reply to: rmarchma who wrote msg# 12604 Date:3/12/2003 8:48:41 PM
Post #of 12640

rmarchma: One possible way to reconcile the two statements is to focus on the use of the word "could" in the 10k. It did not say any finding of non infringement "would" materially affect the case. Since the statement two months later says "The company believes these rulings... do not materially affect the relief sought" it could be presumed these particular finding of non infringement didn't have a material adverse affect. In other words, the claims for which a finding of non infringement would have had a negative material effect, survived summary judgment.

JMHO James"

Evidently IDCC's claims and patents which survived the partial summary judgements are very strong and extremely important/essential. Therefore even if some of the claims and patents have been removed from trial considerations, those that remain are good enough to get all that IDCC is seeking in their opinion.